3 ms·

Pointing out that the person decrying behaviour in others is in fact excusing or even ignoring the actions of their own side (whom they consider more virtuous)

• teddyh 5y ago
  > is not an ad-hominem, it's an inconsistency or an error in their argument. If your position is that one person can make an argument and be wrong because of other things that other person did, you are not denying that the same argument could, possibly, be made by another person and be right. Therefore, this is not arguing against the argument, it is simply opposing the person making it. Hence, ad hominem. > The accusation of hypocrisy, and blindness to the faults of their favoured group is pertinent Well, maybe. But at best it’s a tangential issue to the actual argument put forward. > relevant to the arguments being put forward. No. Bad things are wrong, and you shouldn’t need to resort to personal attacks in order to argue against them. > I am not expressing a logical disagreement with the premise of the article, merely laughing at the bald-facedness and ignorance of it. Sure, but take care that you do not lower the discource down to “Well, you’re ugly!”. Try to argue the points, not the people.